50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat

In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to “refute” concerns about sugar’s possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967,with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.

The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.

The authors of the new article say that for the past five decades, the sugar industry has been attempting to influence the scientific debate over the relative risks of sugar and fat.

“It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion,” co-author Stanton Glantz told The New York Times.

Money on the line

In the article, published Monday, authors Glantz, Cristin Kearns and Laura Schmidt aren’t trying make the case for a link between sugar and coronary heart disease. Their interest is in the process. They say the documents reveal the sugar industry attempting to influence scientific inquiry and debate.

The researchers note that they worked under some limitations — “We could not interview key actors involved in this historical episode because they have died,” they write. Other organizations were also advocating concerns about fat, they note.

There’s no evidence that the SRF directly edited the manuscript published by the Harvard scientists in 1967, but there is “circumstantial” evidence that the interests of the sugar lobby shaped the conclusions of the review, the researchers say.

For one thing, there’s motivation and intent. In 1954, the researchers note, the president of the SRF gave a speech describing a great business opportunity.

If Americans could be persuaded to eat a lower-fat diet — for the sake of their health — they would need to replace that fat with something else. America’s per capita sugar consumption could go up by a third.

But in the ’60s, the SRF became aware of “flowing reports that sugar is a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates,” as John Hickson, SRF vice president and director of research, put it in one document.

He recommended that the industry fund its own studies — “Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors.”

The next year, after several scientific articles were published suggesting a link between sucrose and coronary heart disease, the SRF approved the literature-review project. It wound up paying approximately $50,000 in today’s dollars for the research.

One of the researchers was the chairman of Harvard’s Public Health Nutrition Department — and an ad hoc member of SRF’s board.

“A different standard” for different studies

Glantz, Kearns and Schmidt say many of the articles examined in the review were hand-selected by SRF, and it was implied that the sugar industry would expect them to be critiqued.

In a letter, SRF’s Hickson said that the organization’s “particular interest” was in evaluating studies focused on “carbohydrates in the form of sucrose.”

“We are well aware,” one of the scientists replied, “and will cover this as well as we can.”

The project wound up taking longer than expected, because more and more studies were being released that suggested sugar might be linked to coronary heart disease. But it was finally published in 1967.

Hickson was certainly happy with the result: “Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print,” he told one of the scientists.

The review minimized the significance of research that suggested sugar could play a role in coronary heart disease. In some cases the scientists alleged investigator incompetence or flawed methodology.

“It is always appropriate to question the validity of individual studies,” Kearns told Bloomberg via email. But, she says, “the authors applied a different standard” to different studies — looking very critically at research that implicated sugar, and ignoring problems with studies that found dangers in fat.

Epidemiological studies of sugar consumption — which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world — were dismissed for having too many possible factors getting in the way. Experimental studies were dismissed for being too dissimilar to real life.

One study that found a health benefit when people ate less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because that dietary change was not feasible.

Another study, in which rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because “such diets are rarely consumed by man.”

The Harvard researchers then turned to studies that examined risks of fat — which included the same kind of epidemiological studies they had dismissed when it came to sugar.

Citing “few study characteristics and no quantitative results,” as Kearns, Glantz and Schmidt put it, they concluded that cutting out fat was “no doubt” the best dietary intervention to prevent coronary heart disease.

Sugar lobby: “Transparency standards were not the norm”

In a statement, the Sugar Association — which evolved out of the SRF — said it is challenging to comment on events from so long ago.

“We acknowledge that the Sugar Research Foundation should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities, however, when the studies in question were published funding disclosures and transparency standards were not the norm they are today,” the association said.

“Generally speaking, it is not only unfortunate but a disservice that industry-funded research is branded as tainted,” the statement continues. “What is often missing from the dialogue is that industry-funded research has been informative in addressing key issues.”

The documents in question are five decades old, but the larger issue is of the moment, as Marion Nestle notes in a commentary in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine:

Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

Academic papers vindicating its Roundup herbicide were written with the help of its employees.

By

Peter Waldman, Tiffany Stecker, and Joel Rosenblatt

Monsanto Co. started an agricultural revolution with its “Roundup Ready” seeds, genetically modified to resist the effects of its blockbuster herbicide called Roundup. That ability to kill weeds while leaving desirable crops intact helped the company turn Roundup’s active ingredient, the chemical glyphosate, into one of the world’s most-used crop chemicals. When that heavy use raised health concerns, Monsanto noted that the herbicide’s safety had repeatedly been vetted by outsiders. But now there’s new evidence that Monsanto’s claims of rigorous scientific review are suspect.

Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure.

Monsanto disclosed that it paid Intertek Group Plc’s consulting unit to develop the review supplement, entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” But that was the extent of Monsanto’s involvement, the main article said. “The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company,” according to the review’s Declaration of Interest statement. “Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”

Monsanto’s internal emails tell a different story. The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down what one of them wrote was the review’s “inflammatory” criticisms of IARC.

“An extensive revision of the summary article is necessary,” wrote that panelist, John Acquavella, an epidemiologist at Aarhus University in Denmark, in a February 2016 email attached to his suggested edits of the draft. Alarmed, Ashley Roberts, the coordinator of the glyphosate papers for Intertek, forwarded Acquavella’s note and edits to Heydens at Monsanto, with the warning: “Please take a look at the latest from the epi(demiology) group!!!!”

Heydens reedited Acquavella’s edits, arguing in six different notes in the draft’s margin that statements Acquavella had found inflammatory were not and should not be changed, despite the author’s requests. In the published article, Heydens’s edits prevailed. In an interview, Acquavella says that he was satisfied with the review’s final tone. According to an invoice he sent Monsanto, he billed the company $20,700 for a single month’s work on the review, which took nearly a year to complete.

Monsanto defends the review’s independence. Monsanto did only “cosmetic editing” of the Intertek papers and nothing “substantive” to alter panelists’ conclusions, says Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president for global strategy. While the “choice of words” in the Declaration of Interest “was not ideal,” he says, “it didn’t change the science.”

In July 2016, the journal’s editor, Roger McClellan, emailed his final instructions to Roberts at Intertek on what the paper’s Acknowledgment and Declaration of Interest statements should include. “I want them to be as clear and transparent as possible,” he wrote. “At the end of the day I want the most aggressive critics of Monsanto, your organization and each of the authors to read them and say—Damn, they covered all the points we intended to raise.”

Specifically, McClellan told Roberts to make clear how the panelists were hired—“ie by Intertek,” McClellan wrote. “If you can say without consultation with Monsanto, that would be great. If there was any review of the reports by Monsanto or their legal representatives, that needs to be disclosed.”

Roberts forwarded McClellan’s emails, along with a more technical question, to Heydens, who responded, “Good grief.” The Declaration of Interest statement was rewritten per McClellan’s instructions, despite being untrue. There was no mention of the company’s participation in the editing.

In response to questions, McClellan wrote in an email on Aug. 7 that he’d been unaware of the Monsanto documents and has forwarded the matter to the journal’s publisher, Taylor & Francis, in Abingdon, England. “These are serious accusations relative to scientific publishing canons and deserve very careful investigation,” he wrote. “I can assure you that Taylor and Francis, as the publisher, and I, as the Scientific Editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, will carefully investigate the matter and take appropriate action.” A Taylor & Francis spokeswoman says it has begun an investigation.

The Monsanto documents, more than 70 in all, were obtained through pretrial discovery and posted online by some of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who claim Monsanto missed a 30-day window to object to their release. Monsanto says it was blindsided by the disclosures and has asked U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco to order the documents pulled from the web and to punish the attorneys for violating confidentiality orders. Says Monsanto’s Partridge: “It’s unfortunate these lawyers are grandstanding at the expense of their clients’ interests.”

Other emails show that Monsanto’s lead toxicologist, Donna Farmer, was removed as a co-author of a 2011 study on glyphosate’s reproductive effects, but not before she made substantial changes and additions to the paper behind the scenes. The study, published in Taylor & Francis’s Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, served to counter findings that glyphosate hampers human reproduction and development. Partridge says Farmer’s contributions didn’t warrant authorship credit. While almost all of her revisions made it into the published paper, her name doesn’t even show up in the acknowledgments.

BOTTOM LINE – Monsanto has long noted that independent scientists have vouched for the safety of its Roundup herbicide. Court data show its employees edited some of those reviews.

I have posted about tattoos several times before, I don’t think it is a good idea to inject something in our bodies, not vaccines, not tattoo ink… I also heard recently from a breast cancer nurse that it was common to find tattoo colors in the lymph nodes, when they removed the lymph nodes from breast cancer patients, when they had tattoos… the lymph system recognize the color as a foreign thing in the body, and want to get rid of it…

Toxic Chemicals Found in Tattoos: Links to Autoimmune and Inflammatory Diseases

Tattooing is a long-standing human ritual that transcends historical and sociocultural boundaries, but more regulatory oversight is needed to ensure inks are not contaminated with dangerous chemical byproducts.

Debunking Tattoo Mythology: A Short History of The Tattooing Ritual

Tattoos represent a cultural rite of passage, a mode of self-expression, and a means of cultivating one’s unique identity (1). British captain, explorer, and navigator James Cook introduced the word tattoo into the European vernacular, as an amalgamation of the Polynesian word ‘ta’ to ‘strike something’ and the Tahitian word ‘tatau’ meaning ‘to mark something’ (2).

The historical use of tattoos extends back at least seven thousand years ago, as tattoos were discovered on the extremities of a mummy from that period found in Northern Chile (3). Also, the five thousand year-old mummified remains of Ötzi the Iceman were found to contain osteochondrosis, or abnormal bone growth, in body sites where tattoos were present (2). Pesapane and colleagues (2014) likewise note that documentation of tattoos dates back to records by Roman emperor Constantine the Great in 313 AD, Pope Hadrian 1 in 787 AD, and the Old Testament (2).

Historically, tattoos were used to demarcate group identity, to protect the internal body from the exterior world, as a symbol of religious indoctrination, and in branding rituals as a form of medieval punishment. As an example of tattoos signifying group affiliation, “Crusaders used mostly Christian motifs to ensure that they received a Christian funeral in case they died in a foreign country” (3). In Japan, on the other hand, criminals were branded with tattoos as a mark of social stigmatization from the eighteenth century onward, which led to the rise of a tattooed demographic called the Yakuza (3).

Although condemned as marks of defilement by monotheistic religions, tattoos were a venerated practice in ancient Egypt and Rome, and remained a secret practice in some Christian sects such as the Sanctuary of Loreto (2). Ocean expeditions of the eighteenth century heralded a resurgence in the popularity of the tattoo, as interaction of colonialists with local South Pacific cultures led to adoption of local tattoo motifs by the former, and the eventual replacement of native designs with European-themed tattoos (3).

In the nineteenth century, a veritable “tattoo mania” was embraced by elite aristocratic European social classes (2). Celebrity figures including Tsar Nicholas II, Sir Winston Churchill, and Empress Elisabeth of Austria all sported tattoos (2, 3). However, in the late nineteenth century, the law profession contributed to the demise of the traditional meanings of the tattoo in their attempts to “conclude from the physiognomy of the exterior appearance as to the moral standards or criminal intent of a person” (3). The public perception of tattoos was also influenced by the display of tattooed persons as elements in circuses and carnivals (3).

Today, popularity of tattooing once again soars, as studies have demonstrated that nearly a third of university students, and 80 million people in the United States, are tattooed (4, 5). With its origins in pre-industrial cultural traditions and supernatural mythology, tattooing and other body modifications have been a long-standing component of the human condition. Clearly, “Tattoos and piercings can no longer be regarded as destructive acts of self mutilation practiced by fringe groups” (1, p. 115).

Histologic Reactions Secondary to Tattoos

Although the age of moralizing tattoos as an indictment of character should be long passed, concerns linger over health implications. According to Wenzel and colleagues (2013), “Medical complications after tattooing are often seen by physicians, but are generally unknown to the public” (6, p. 138). Tattoos have been associated with “allergic, lichenoid, granulomatous, and pseudolymphomatous reactions or induction of skin diseases” (2, p. 145). Other localized skin diseases, including the autoimmune disorders lichen planus and psoriasis, as well as eczema and morphea, have also been induced by tattoos (7).

In one nationwide survey of German-speaking countries, for example, 67.5% of individuals with tattoos reported skin problems, 6% reported systemic reactions resulting from tattoos, with 1.3% reporting light sensitivity of the tattooed skin (8). The survey similarly revealed that chronic problems including burning, itching, erythema, papules, nodules, and eczema occurred in 6% of subjects (8). It is estimated that five million people in the United States have persistent skin problems secondary to tattoos, but data on toxicant-induced health problems related to tattoos has not been systematically collected (9).

According to Goldstein (1979), “The injection of any foreign material into the skin produces an inflammatory response, and some degree of necrosis, due to mechanical disruption of the tissue” (10, p. 896). Although this initial reaction normally subsides, subsequent sensitization reactions can occur along with mild fibrosis of the papillary dermis, meaning thickening and scarring of collagenous connective tissue (10).

In addition, perivascular infiltration of lymphocytes and macrophages, meaning migration of white blood cells of the immune system to sites around slightly dilated blood vessels, is also a feature of tattooed tissues (10). Various histological abnormalities can occur, such as foreign-body type or sarcoid type granulomatous formations, comprised of aggregates of macrophage cells known as histiocytes (10). Inflammatory infiltrates characterized by significant fibroplasia, or the growth of fibrous tissue, creating nodules known as dermatofibroma and keratoses can also occur (10).

Pathological skin pigmentation, known as cutaneous dyschromia, can likewise occur due to deposition of heavy metals such as bismuth and mercury in the basement membranes of sebaceous glands and sweat ducts (10).

Tattoo Safety: A Need For More Regulatory Oversight

Researchers state, “Tattoo inks are typically composed of negligibly soluble or insoluble pigments, dispersants in which the pigments are suspended and other additives for preservation or to alter the viscosity of the ink” (11). Although some contemporary inks can contain organic pigments, colored ink conventionally contains metals (12). Because other industrial applications of tattoo inks include paint and printing, they can harbor up to 10% impurities (9). Further, studies show that the “vast majority of tested tattoo inks contained significant amounts of NPs [nanoparticles],” which are associated with a litany of ill health effects (13).

A recent study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials revealed that chemicals present in tattoo ink induced cytotoxicity (cell death), genotoxicity (DNA mutation), and adaptive stress response pathways (11). Adaptive stress pathways are activated to restore cellular homeostasis, or balance, following damage incurred to cell structure, indicating that tattoo ink disrupts cellular integrity (34). Chemicals in tattoo ink can contribute to deleterious health outcomes by different modes, including binding of chemicals to enzymes and biological molecules and partitioning of chemicals into cell membranes (11).

Safety Hazards of Colored Inks

Because no color additives are approved for intradermal injection, no tattoo pigments are approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As articulated in a study by Arisa and Alster (2012), “The majority of tattoo ink is industrial-grade color intended for use as printer ink or automobile paint” (14).

Colored pigments, on the one hand, can decompose following light exposure into dangerous aromatic amines which are subsequently disseminated throughout the body and accumulate in lymphatic system, interfacing directly with components of the immune system (6). In a recent study, the levels of genotoxicity (DNA damage) and oxidative stress (inflammatory) pathways induced by red and yellow tattoo ink were particularly troublesome, as they generated the greatest response (11). Another study by Falconi and colleagues (2009) found that red tattoo ink significantly reduced viability of fibroblast cells, which are responsible for production of the extracellular matrix that provides the structural framework for tissues (15).

When exposed to natural or ultraviolet light, azo pigments contained within red and yellow inks have been demonstrated to emit hazardous compounds, and they also have been shown to contain the probable human carcinogen 3,3-dichlorobenzidine as an intermediary in their production (11). Furthermore, o-anisidine and 4-aminobiphenyl, aromatic amines within red ink, can elicit genotoxic effects, damaging genetic material after metabolic activation (11, 16). Other investigations have elucidated a connection between red tattoo ink, skin irritation, and tumors (6). In various studies, “Coincidental lesions such as sarcoidosis, B-cell lymphoma, pseudolymphoma, melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and squamous cell carcinoma have also been reported to occur” (14).

Safety Hazards of Black Inks

However, black inks, which predominately consist of soot products, are also problematic (9). Carbon black in black ink is derived from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons, which accounts for its polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) content (17). PAHs represent ubiquitous pollutants derived from the burning of organic materials such as wood, petrol, oil, and coal, which elicit well-defined carcinogenic (cancer-causing), mutagenic (DNA-altering), and toxic effects (18).

Researchers state, “Chemical analysis revealed the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the tested black tattoo ink at concentrations twice the recommended level” (11). In particular, the PAHs pyrene and fluoranthene were found at the highest levels, and the possible human carcinogen naphthalene was also detected (11). PAHs are capable of absorbing ultraviolet radiation from the sun and producing a cytotoxic reactive oxygen species (ROS), singlet oxygen, as a byproduct, which can result in cell death (6). In another study, 10 of 11 black inks tested had levels of PAH exceeding the concentration recommended by the European Council, and 100% of black inks analyzed had levels of the carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene exceeding safe limits (17).

One toxic ingredient found in black tattoo ink, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (HCBD), is a byproduct of manufacturing processes for chlorinated solvents, and has a history of use as a fumigant or pesticide (9). It has been shown to perpetuate skin, kidney, and liver damage in rodent studies (19). 9-fluorenone, acquired from coal tar, has likewise been found in black tattoo ink and may cause phototoxic reactions, or chemically induced skin irritation following sunlight exposure (20, 21).

Hexamethylenetetramine, a preservative used in the manufacture of coatings, resins, rubber, and cosmetics, is another agent contained within some black tattoo inks (9). It releases formaldehyde, the xenobiotic toxic substance used to embalm corpses, which is associated with systemic autoimmune disease (22). It has likwewise been shown in the literature to cause respiratory allergies and contact dermatitis (9).

Particularly alarming is the occurrence of dibenzofuran (DBF) in black tattooing agents, which is derived from “the incomplete combustion of coal biomass, refuse, diesel fuel, and residual oil, as well as tobacco smoke” 9, p. 236). When polychlorinated, or attached to chlorine atoms, it belongs to a dangerous class of persistent organic pollutants called dioxin-like chemicals (9). Dioxin-like chemicals exert gastrointestinal, hepatic, and dermal toxicity and DBF can cause respiratory irritation (9).

Components of Tattoo Ink Linked to Autoimmunity and Mitochondrial Dysfunction

Another study found that all 14 commercially available black inks analyzed contained the softener dibutyl phthalate, a sensitizing agent which “acts directly on keratinocytes and can drive Th2 responses following skin exposure via induction of thymic stromal lymphopoietin gene expression” (9, p. 231). This is to say, dibutyl phthalate can facilitate expression of a gene that tips the immune system in the direction of Th2-dominant responses, which have been implicated in some autoimmune diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and Sjögren’s syndrome (23).

Other chemicals found within tattoos, such as formaldehyde, may induce autoimmunity by either inducing cell death, and exposing antigenic material within the cell against which the immune system may mount an attack, or by covalently binding to tissue and creating ‘neoantigens’ which incite immune responses (24, 25, 26).

Black inks likewise have been shown to induce production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as singlet oxygen or peroxyl radicals, which are free-radicals that can steal electrons from neighboring molecules and damage cell constituents (17). One study by Regensberger and colleagues (2010) found that in the presence of ultraviolet light, some black inks reduced activity of the energetic powerhouses of the cell, the mitochondria, of human dermal keratinocytes, the type of cell that predominates in the outermost layer of skin (27). Impaired mitochondrial activity has health implications since mitochondrial dysfunction is implicated in mood disorders, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, migraine headaches, autoimmune diseases, and cancer (28).

Risk of Infection from Tattoos

Although professional tattooist organizations have improved hygienic standards, concerns about contagious exposure through tattooing remains (29). As articulated by Serup (2017), microbial pathogens such as hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis C (HCV), and human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) can be introduced, and “Severity of infection varies from minor to major, ultimately with life-threatening septicemia” (29, p. 30). People who are immunocompromised are often advised to refrain from tattooing (29).

Although sanitation measures are improving and risk of contracting infectious diseases from contaminated tattoo equipment has decreased, the inks themselves may harbor infectious microbes (30). Recent studies reveal that, despite 42% of products claiming sterility on their labels, 10% of unopened and 17% of previously used stock bottles of tattoo ink were contaminated with pathogenic bacteria, and that almost a third of products had leaking physical seals (31). Those inks marketed as nontoxic, which exclude alcohol and preservatives, possess greater risk of microbial contaminants, such as the Starbrite Colors tattoo inks which were removed from the market due to the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acremonium mold (14).

How To Ensure Tattoo Safety

As an honored tradition, indelible art form, and means of forging individuation, it is incumbent upon the industry to guarantee safer options for tattoo ink. People should have the bodily autonomy to engage in tattooing practices without sacrificing their health.

For instance, vegetable-based inks, such as yellow pigments derived from turmeric, may represent a safer alternative, although they may need to be special ordered by the tattoo artist. Not dissimilar to cosmetics, the FDA has not traditionally enforced or regulated tattoo inks (32). Further, the level of transparency regarding ingredients is impeded by the proprietary nature of the tattoo inks sold by many manufacturers.

In addition, because the term non-toxic is not legally regulated, what is advertised as nontoxic ink may still contain deleterious ingredients, such as blue pigments derived from the neurotoxin aluminum and white pigments derived from titanium dioxide nanoparticles. The latter, for example, is not only classified as possessing carcinogenic properties by both the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, but also elicits oxidative damage that can cause immunogenicity, inflammation, genotoxicity, and problems with cell integrity (33).

Consumers should demand access to safer tattoo inks and also rally for more regulatory oversight not only in this domain, but in the realms of cosmetics and personal care products as well. Further, for those suffering from toxicity as a result of tattoos, natural regimens intended to support biotransformation and elimination may be indicated, and some individuals suffering overt heavy metal toxicity may need to undergo chelation protocols supervised by an environmental medicine physician.

References

1. Stirn, A. (2007). [“My body belongs to me”–cultural history and psychology of piercings and tattoos] [Article in German]. The Umsch, 64(2), 115-119.

2. Pesapane, F. et al. (2014). A short history of tattoo. Journal of the American Medical Association: Dermatology, 150(2), 145. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.8860

Ali Le Vere holds dual Bachelor of Science degrees in Human Biology and Psychology, minors in Health Promotion and in Bioethics, Humanities, and Society, and is a Master of Science in Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine candidate. Having contended with chronic illness, her mission is to educate the public about the transformative potential of therapeutic nutrition and to disseminate information on evidence-based, empirically rooted holistic healing modalities. Read more at @empoweredautoimmune on Instagram and at www.EmpoweredAutoimmune.com: Science-based natural remedies for autoimmune disease, dysautonomia, Lyme disease, and other chronic, inflammatory illnesses.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Internal Site Commenting is limited to members.
Disqus commenting is available to everyone.

Healthy Boy Dies After Gardasil Injection

Joel Gomez was just 14 years old. Medical records show he was a healthy boy who made all his check-ups at his pediatrician’s office.He had no pre-existing health issues.

He had no cardiac abnormalities, psychological disorders, substance abuse, or any other issues.

But, he had a vaccine the day before he died.

From the article:

“An expert hired by the family of a boy who died after his second Gardasil injection has testified that Gardasil likely caused the boy’s death. The case – Gomez versus USDOH: Petition No. 15-0160V1 – was filed by a California law firm for petitioners Adan Gomez and Raquel Ayon, on behalf of their deceased son Joel Gomez. The petition states, in part:

“Joel Gomez received a Merck Gardasil vaccine on June 19, 2013 and again on August 19, 2013, and died in his sleep the following day on August 20, 2013. The death was caused in fact by receiving the Gardasil Vaccine.

Gardasil did cause or contributed to a myocardial infarction in the decedent, and that the second dose of Gardasil finally caused a fatal hypotension in this case on the day of vaccination. There was no other plausible cause for the death of Joel Gomez. . .”

Sadly, Joel was another casualty of the Gardasil vaccine.

Joel was injected, in his left arm, on June 19, 2013 with his first dose of Gardasil (with no adverse reactions reported by the family or physician) and again on August 19, 2013, with a second dose of Gardasil. Then he went home, fell asleep, and died. He was found unresponsive in bed the following day, taken to the hospital, and pronounced dead.

How many more kids have to suffer, or even die before the United States says “enough”?

An autopsy done on August 23, by a medical examiner (ME) of Los Angeles, California revealed significant abnormal findings:

“…a long narrow band of dark reddish discoloration which is somewhat darker than the rest of the myocardium, extends over a length of 6 cm and has a width of 0.4 cm extending from the anterior base of the heart almost to the apex. ..this lesion is limited to the anterior free wall. Both lungs are extremely heavy. The lung parenchyma is dark-purple-red and completely soaked with edema fluid and blood. Microscopically, a localized lesion was found in the left ventricle of the heart.”

When Dr. Sin Hang Lee, MD (who the family hired) reviewed the autopsy findings, it was his opinion that the lesion of the heart was a healing myocardial infarct – a few weeks old- and was the result of the first Gardasil vaccination. He stated, “The HPV L1 gene DNA fragments bound to the aluminum adjuvant in Gardasil can cause sudden and unexpected surge of tumor necrosis factor-α and other cytokines. Some of these cytokines released from macrophages are potent myocardial depressants, capable of causing hypotension with low cardiac perfusions in certain genetically or physically predisposed individuals.” And this type of damage, according to Dr. Lee is practically unheard of. In fact, poor Joel’s heart actually presents as a textbook description of myocardial infarction- commonly observed in much older patients with a history of heart attack(s).

More from the article:

“A CDC study shows that among 12,424 reported adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination from June 1, 2006 through December 3 1, 2008, there were 32 deaths with a mean age of 18 years old, who died 2 to 405 days after the last Gardasil® injection. Medical records and autopsy reports on 20 of the 32 deaths were available for review and confirmed there were 4 unexplained deaths and 6 cardiac-related deaths.”

Again, how many more kids need to die? And how many Gardasil-vaccinated girls (or boys) have developed permanent myocardial damage, whether it’s called myocarditis or infarct?

Our hearts go out to all the parents and families who have had loved ones die or who have been seriously harmed by this vaccine, or any other. We look ahead with hope, to a day when this won’t happen anymore. And we can make it happen. All it takes is just one voice. Don’t be afraid to use yours.

Have you ever wondered why so many kids these days are allergic to peanuts? Where did this allergy come from all of a sudden?

Before 1900, reactions to peanuts were unheard of. Today almost a 1.5 million children in this country are allergic to peanuts.

What happened? Why is everybody buying EpiPens now?

Looking at all the problems with vaccines during the past decade, [2] just a superficial awareness is enough to raise the suspicion that vaccines might have some role in the appearance of any novel allergy among children.

But reactions to peanuts are not just another allergy. Peanut allergy has suddenly emerged as the #1 cause of death from food reactions, being in a category of allergens able to cause anaphylaxis. This condition brings the risk of asthma attack, shock, respiratory failure, and even death. Primarily among children.

Sources cited in Heather Fraser’s 2011 book The Peanut Allergy Epidemic suggest a vaccine connection much more specifically. We learn that a class of vaccine adjuvants – excipients – is a likely suspect in what may accurately be termed an epidemic. [1]

But let’s back up a little. We have to look at both vaccines and antibiotics in recent history, and the physical changes the ingredients in these brand new medicines introduced into the blood of children.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK AND ALLERGY

Before 1900, anaphylactic shock was virtually unknown. The syndrome of sudden fainting, respiratory distress, convulsions, and sometimes death did not exist until vaccinators switched from the lancet to the hypodermic needle. That transformation was essentially complete by the turn of the century in the western world.

Right at that time, a new disease called Serum Sickness began to afflict thousands of children. A variety of symptoms, including shock, fainting, and sometimes death, could suddenly result following an injection.

Instead of covering it up, the connection was well recognized and documented in the medical literature of the day. Dr Clemens Von Pirquet, who actually coined the word “allergy,” was a leading researcher in characterizing the new disease. [5] Serum Sickness was the first mass allergenic phenomenon in history. What had been required for its onset, apparently, was the advent of the hypodermic needle.

When the needle replaced the lancet in the late 1800s, Serum Sickness soon became a frequent visitor to the child’s bed. It was a known consequence of vaccinations. Indeed, the entire field of modern allergy has evolved from the early study of Serum Sickness coming from vaccines.

VACCINE HYPERSENSITIVITY

Von Pirquet recognized that vaccines had 2 primary effects: immunity and hypersensitivity. [5] He said they were inseparable: the one was the price of the other.

In other words, if we were going to benefit from the effects of mass immunization, we must accept the downside of mass hypersensitivity as a necessary co-feature. Modern medicine has decided that this double effect should be kept secret, so they don’t allow it to be brought up much.

Many doctors in the early 1900s were dead set against vaccines for this precise reason. The advertised benefit was not proven to be worth the risk. Doctors like Walter Hadwen MD, Wm. Howard Hay, and Alfred Russell Wallace saw how smallpox vaccines had actually increased the incidence of smallpox. [2,3] Wallace was one of the principal epidemiologists of the age, and his charts showing the increase in smallpox death from vaccination are unassailable – meticulous primary sources.

Another landmark researcher of the early 1900s was Dr Charles Richet, the one who coined the term anaphylaxis. [4] Richet focused on the reactions that some people seemed to have to certain foods. He found that with food allergies, the reaction came on as the result of intact proteins in the food having bypassed the digestive system and making their way intact into the blood, via leaky gut.

Foreign protein in the blood, of course, is a universal trigger for allergic reaction, not just in man but in all animals. [6]

But Richet noted that in the severe cases, food anaphylaxis did not happen just by eating a food. That would simply be food poisoning.

Food anaphylaxis is altogether different. This sudden, violent reaction requires an initial sensitization involving injection of some sort, followed by a later ingestion of the sensitized food. Get the shot, then later eat the food.

The initial exposure creates the hypersensitivity. The second exposure would be the violent, perhaps fatal, physical event.

Richet’s early work around 1900 was primarily with eggs, meat, milk and diphtheria proteins. Not peanuts. The value of Richet’s research with reactive foods was to teach us the sequence of allergic sensitivity leading to anaphylaxis, how that had to take place.

Soon other doctors began to notice striking similarities between food reactions and the serum sickness that was associated with vaccines. Same exact clinical presentation.

PENICILLIN

Next up was penicillin, which became popular in the 1940s. It was soon found that additives called excipients were necessary to prolong the effect of the antibiotic injected into the body. The excipients would act as carrier molecules. Without excipients, the penicillin would only last about 2 hours. Refined oils worked best, acting as time-release capsules for the antibiotic.

Peanut oil became the favorite, because it worked well, and was available and inexpensive.

Allergy to penicillin became common, and was immediately recognized as a sensitivity to the excipient oils. To the present day, that’s why they always ask if you’re allergic to penicillin. The allergy is a sensitivity to the excipients.

By 1953 as many as 12% of the population was allergic to penicillin. [1] But considering the upside with life-threatening bacterial infections, it was still a good deal – a worthwhile risk.

By 1950 antibiotics were being given out like M&Ms. Soldiers, children, anybody with any illness, not just bacterial. Despite Alexander Fleming’s severe warnings against prophylactic antibiotics, antibiotics were given indiscriminately as the new wonder drug. Just in case anything. [7] Only then, in the 1950s, did peanut allergy begin to occur, even though Americans had been eating peanuts for well over a century.

Remember – just eating peanuts cannot cause peanut allergy. Except if they are allowed to become moldy of course, in which case aflatoxins are released. But that’s really not a peanut allergy.

When peanut allergy did appear, the numbers of cases were fairly small and initially it wasn’t even considered worthy of study.

THE RISE OF VACCINES

The big change came with vaccines. Peanut oils were introduced as vaccine excipients in the mid 1960s. An article appeared in the NY Times on 18 Sept, 1964 that would never be printed today. [8] The author described how a newly patented ingredient containing peanut oil was added as an adjuvant to a new flu vaccine, in order to prolong the “immunity.” The oil was reported to act as a time release capsule, and theoretically enhanced the vaccine’s strength. Same mechanism as with penicillin.

That new excipient, though not approved in the US, became the model for subsequent vaccines. ([1] p 103)

By 1980 peanut oil had become the preferred excipient in vaccines, even though the dangers were well documented. [9] It was considered an adjuvant – a substance able to increase reactivity to the vaccine. This reinforced the Adjuvant Myth: the illusion that immune response is the same as immunity [2].

The pretense here is that the stronger the allergic response to the vaccine, the greater will be the immunity that is conferred. This fundamental error is consistent throughout vaccine literature of the past century.

Historically, researchers who challenged this Commandment of vaccine mythology did not advance their careers.

KEEPING PEANUT ADJUVANTS A SECRET

The first study of peanut allergies was not undertaken until 1973. It was a study of peanut excipients in vaccines. Soon afterwards, and as a result of the attention from that study, manufacturers were no longer required to disclose all the ingredients in vaccines.

What is listed in the Physicians Desk Reference in each vaccine section is not the full formula. Same with the inserts. Suddenly after 1973, that detailed information was proprietary: the manufacturers knew it must be protected. Intellectual property. So now they only were required to describe the formula in general.

Why was peanut allergy so violent? Adjuvant pioneer Maurice Hilleman claimed peanut oil adjuvants had all protein removed by refining. [9] The FDA disagreed. They said some peanut protein traces would always persist [10]- that even the most refined peanut oils still contained some traces of intact peanut proteins. This was the reason doctors were directed to inject vaccines intramuscular rather than intravenous – a greater chance of absorption of intact proteins, less chance of reaction.

But all their secret research obviously wasn’t enough to prevent sensitivity. Mother Nature bats last: no intact proteins in the body. 60 million years of Natural Selection didn’t create the mammalian immune system for nothing. Put intact proteins, peanut or whatever, for any imagined reason into the human system and the inflammatory response will fire. And since the goal of oil emulsion adjuvants was to prolong reactivity in the first place – the notion of time-release – this led to sensitization.

PEANUT ALLERGY EPIDEMIC

Although peanut allergies became fairly common during the 1980s, it wasn’t until the early 1990s when there was a sudden surge of children reacting to peanuts – the true epidemic appeared. What changed? The Mandated Schedule of vaccines for children doubled from the 80s to the 90s:

1980 – 20 vaccines
1995 – 40 vaccines
2011 – 68 vaccines

It would be imprudent enough to feed peanuts to a newborn, since the digestive system is largely unformed. But this is much worse – injecting intact proteins directly into the infant’s body. In 36 vaccines before the age of 18 months.

A new kind of anaphylaxis appeared with peanut reactions: reverse anaphylaxis. (p 172, [1]) The reaction was not only to the sensitizing antigen, but to the weird new antibodies that had just been introduced in the human species by the new antigen. Without the usual benefit of the evolutionary process.

As vaccines doubled between the 1980s and the 1990s, hundreds of thousands of kids were now exhibiting peanut sensitivities, with frequent cases of anaphylaxis reactions, sometimes fatal.

But nobody talked about it.

Following the next enormous increase in vaccines on the Mandated Schedule after 9/11, whereby the total shot up to 68 recommended vaccines, the peanut allergy soon reached epidemic proportions: a million children: 1.5% of them. These numbers fit the true definition of epidemic even though that word has never been used in mainstream literature with respect to peanut allergy, except in Fraser’s odd little book.

Many researchers, not just Heather Fraser, could see very clearly that

But with the newfound research, the medical profession will do what they always must do – bury it. Protect the companies. So no money will be ever allocated from NIH to study the obvious connection between vaccine excipients and peanut allergy. That cannot happen, primarily because it would require a control group – an unvaccinated population. And that is the Unspoken Forbidden.

Same line of reasoning that has prevented Wakefield’s work from ever being replicated in a mainstream US clinical study. No unvaccinated populations. Which actually means no studies whose outcome could possibly implicate vaccines as a source of disease or immunosuppression. Vaccines as a cause of an allergy epidemic? Impossible. Let’s definitely not study it.

Instead let’s spend the next 20 years looking for the Genetic Link to the childhood peanut allergy epidemic…

In such a flawed system, any pretense of true clinical science is revealed as fatally handicapped of course: we are looking for the truth, wherever our studies shall take us, except for this, and this, and oh yes, this.

Evidence for the connection between peanut excipients and vaccines is largely indirect today, because of the circling of the wagons by the manufacturers. It is very difficult to find peanut excipients listed in the inserts and PDR listings of vaccines. Simple liability.

FRAME OF REFERENCE

So in addition to all the other problems with vaccines delineated in our text, now we have a new one – peanut oil excipients. Which all by themselves can cause severe, even fatal, episodes of shock, as well as chronic allergy – irrespective of the mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, ethylene glycol, and the attenuated pathogens which the manufacturers do admit to.

Quite a toxic burden to saddle the unprotected newborn with. No wonder the US Supreme Court refers to vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe.”

Childhood allergies doubled between 1980 and 2000, and have doubled again since that time. [11] Theories abound. Childhood vaccines doubled at the same time. Why is there a virtual blackout of viable discussion about this glaring fact?

The epidemic of peanut allergy is just one facet of this much broader social phenomenon. We have the sickest, most allergic kids of any country, industrialized or not, on Earth. A study of the standard literature of vaccines is identical to a study of the history of adjuvants – an exercise in cover-up and dissimulation. Unvaccinated children don’t become autistic. And they don’t go into shock from eating peanuts.

But there can never be a formal clinical study where the control group is unvaccinated. NIH would never do that. They cannot. They know the outcome.

During all my years of research regarding vaccines, their chemical compositions, and inevitable adverse reactions or events, I never failed to question how come – or why – the U.S. CDC and/or FDA never “got it” with regard to all the adverse events and ill-health reports filed for the health problems apparently induced by vaccines, especially since the U.S. CDC vaccine mandates of the 1980s.

Protracted vaccine-induced health problems have magnified (see the VAERS reports) to the point where, currently, there is a tremendous backlash against vaccines, which probably is long overdue, and needs to be supported by medical professionals, who ought to know better. Undoubtedly, one would think that MDs were ‘pimping’ for Big Pharma, if one didn’t know better.

In the October 6, 2014 issue of Time, Jeffrey Kluger wrote the article “Who’s Afraid Of A Little Vaccine?”, which seems to make sense, except when a reader steps back, evaluates, and parses the obvious “set-in-stone” debate that Kluger proffers. Obviously, there is much to challenge about Kluger’s pontifications, especially when one is either a consumer health researcher with no financial interests in vaccines, as I have been; or is not willing to accept the ‘force-fed’ dogma that vaccines cannot harm, which is total medical mythology and poppycock; or is not a paid astroturfer.

To scientifically refute vaccine apologists’ ‘fairy tales’, please check out The Vaccine Research Library where you can read thousands upon thousands of valid published medical research, papers, abstracts, articles, etc. that expose the real, documented harm vaccines cause. Furthermore, I document and explain many toxic ingredients from published peer review articles in vaccines in my 2013 book, Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines.

Every pharmaceutical ever manufactured by Big Pharma had/has contraindications, adverse reactions, or warnings and precautions as published in every pharmaceutical product’s “package insert” (PI). One such example is the PI for Merck & Company’s HPV vaccine Gardasil®. Furthermore, every parent or legal guardian should be required by law to read/study every vaccine PI before each vaccination can be administered, as part of the educational campaign to vaccinate their children.

Reading the Gardasil PI, one easily can see that “…other seizure-like activity, has been reported following vaccination with GARDASIL.” Since seizure-like activity can encompass a litany of central nervous system (CNS) issues or problems, why do the CDC, FDA and Merck not recognize or admit that the CNS problems girls have been experiencing after Gardasil shots – a series of 3 injections several months apart – can be related, or even cause them?

As an aside, some recent research may be of help to Gardasil damage/repair researchers. Since most CNS damage usually involves myelin sheath damage, new research is showing promise that the medicinal mushroom Hericium erinaceus, aka the Lion’s Mane or Monkey’s Head, may improve transmission of nerve messages and myelin sheath growth. [See 15, 16]

In the South American country of Colombia over 700 girls have been adversely affected, which I will discuss later. But the serious concern is how come HPV vaccines have been allowed to stay on the market, damage, and kill vaccinees when no one in the CDC, FDA, U.S. Congress, who has oversight, and the supposed ‘free press’ have not been able to do something to expose these life-threatening and life-altering HPV vaccines for recall.

For the official record, the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) reports that twelve (12) deaths were attributed to HPV vaccines as filed or reported with them. [1]

Whereas, according to the SGS website regarding automotive industry recalls,

In a recall, products of a production serial or batch with harmful manufacturing defectsare retrieved from the market. Such a recall can be ordered by official testing authorities or upon a firm’s own request. [2] [CJF emphasis added]

Answer: “Four fatalities and more than 100 injuries have been linked to the Takata air bags…”(Source)

Now, here’s where we realize the obvious ill-found logic of Big Pharma’s and vaccine apologists’ religious, faith-like belief about vaccines that they can do no harm and are not responsible nor contribute to health problems, which the medical professions assert are “coincidental,” especially regarding the HPV vaccines. When in fact, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (the Vaccine Court) has paid out $39,176,070.00 in claims in Fiscal Year to Date (Dec. 2014) alone, per Page 3 of that report.

However, or perhaps, here’s where the real deal may be found: The financial spread sheet on vaccine revenues and payouts, i.e., Cumulative Results of Operations total $3,515,428,504.10. That’s over Three-and-a-half BILLION U.S. Dollars. That’s not chicken feed!

Where has that money gone? How much went to injured vaccinees? How much of the taxes collected on each and every vaccine sold, which the feds collect, does the U.S. government utilize or manage, and how? Should we question whether it is a Ponzi-like scheme that Uncle Sam operates supposedly on behalf of injured vaccinees, but winds up being operated, in most cases, against damaged vaccinees due to claims being dismissed by Vaccine Court masters? Compare the number of awards compensated (3897) with the number of payments (4912) to attorneys of dismissed cases. Where is the U.S. Congress on this, and why are they mute?

Probably, they are luxuriating in the back pockets of Big Pharma’s Capitol Hill lobbyists. Don’t believe that? Well, read what The Center for Public Integrity says:

It’s actually the pharmaceutical industry that spends the most each year to influence our lawmakers, forking over a total of $2.6 billion on lobbying activities from 1998 through 2012, according to OpenSecrets.org. [4] Emphasis added.

In 14 to 15 years, Big Pharma ‘hush money’ amounted to $2.6 BILLION!

That, alone, ought to tell anyone with an ounce of gray matter inside their cranium that money speaks louder than expository, critical, valid science. Unfortunately, lobbyists’ money also tends to make ‘religious converts’ in Congress regarding vaccine pseudoscience ‘faith dogmas’, and allows lobbyists to write vested-interest-laws for Congresspersons to introduce.

That’s undoubtedly why the U.S. Congress kowtowed to Big Pharma in 1986 and ever since, I contend. Big Pharma apparently used ‘terrorist tactics’, in a sense, as Pharma said if it didn’t procure a “Get out of jail free” card regarding ethical/legal/financial liability-free damage status for their vaccines, then they would stop making vaccines. I’d call that ‘shot gun legislation’, i.e., Put coercive monetary guns to anyone’s head and, of course, they will cave. Seemingly, Congress was a little too eager to cave, I contend, and it’s been ‘hell on earth’ for thousands, if not millions, of infants, toddlers, teens, and adults ever since 1986 when the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed.

Subsequently, autism went from 1 in 10,000 in the late 1970s to currently 1 in 68. We now have over 90% vaccinated children in the USA [17]; 95% is targeted for supposed acquired ‘herd immunity’ status.

Alzheimer’s disease in the elderly was nowhere on the medical radar until after the medical cartel mandated senior citizens get annual flu shots and pneumococcal vaccines, both of which contain neurotoxins and toxic chemicals. Currently, there are 5.1 million Alzheimer’s patients [5]. Another thing that we didn’t have, until after the senior citizen vaccine campaigns, was lockdown Alzheimer residences.

Is there any correlation and causation going on? Possibly, and that’s what needs to be investigated by independent, non-Pharma-affiliated researchers and scientists who will produce unbiased reports not financed nor published by Big Pharma in their ‘peer review’ journals that they own, influence, and publish.

Later on you will learn how Colombia is reacting to Gardasil-vaccine-damaged girls. But, here’s more about the monetary aspects of vaccines in the USA.

Personally, this writer thinks there ought to be a convincing explanation about the differences between the two figures. Maybe there even ought to be an independent audit by the Inspector General – just in case!

Now on to Colombia’s Gardasil Nightmare

According to a January 6, 2015 report on Elheraldo.co, parents of injured girls in Carmen de Bolivar were outraged when the Colombian National Institute of Health (INS) ’leaked’ the final report on their ’scientific investigation’ into the epidemic of new medical conditions occurring after the administration of the second dose of Gardasil. [6]

SaneVax published “HPV vaccine controversy in Colombia continues” [6] wherein more of the details regarding the 700 injured Gardasil HPV vaccinees appear, which readers are encouraged to read in full to appreciate what’s been going on.

The comments this writer wishes to make regarding the Colombia HPV vaccine problems include:

The Colombian Inspector General’s response is totally different from what happens in the USA where harmed vaccinees are ‘hung out to dry’ and left to fend for themselves with parents being saddled with all sorts of problems and medical bills for seriously injured, previously healthy “Gardasil girls.”

“He also requested further monitoring and timely comprehensive treatment to girls who were apparently affected by the HPV vaccine.” [6] Emphasis added.

His other recommendations can be read in the SaneVax article. But, the real clincher is that the Colombian judicial system is making certain that all those injured by this recent Gardasil health problem affecting so many young girls, who are disabled, are provided all the required treatments regardless of “whether or not the costs incurred are covered in the patient’s current health insurance program or the Public Health Plan (POS).”[6] Emphasis added.

Can you imagine that ever happening in the USA?

Incidentally, the attorney representing many Gardasil-injured girls,

Monica Leon Del Rio is no stranger to the HPV vaccine controversy. She is the mother of a young woman who experienced paralysis and various medical dysfunctions after the administration of HPV vaccine in January 2013. She is currently representing at least 50 other girls from El Carmen de Bolivar who are exhibiting new medical conditions after using HPV vaccines. Her mission is to ensure survivors of HPV vaccinations receive proper medical diagnosis and treatment. [6] Emphasis added.

Ironically and utterly distressing, the Colombia HPV vaccine disaster is not unique. Ongoing, there are equally serious health problems and concerns about HPV vaccine damage in numerous countries, e.g., Australia, Canada, Ireland [10], Spain [9], United Kingdom, France [7], Japan [8], and of course, in the USA where SaneVax is devoted to tracking the health-damaging course of events in vaccinees.

This truly makes no logical scientific or medical ethics sense at all.

Since high ranking honchos at USA federal and state health agencies apparently have been to college/university and earned degrees—usually of higher learning, one has to wonder what happens along the way that seemingly impedes administrators, medical doctors, and researchers from understanding that the prime reason for science and research is to find/research, investigate, and give expression to uncovering and exposing ideas, facts, and information that contradict not only the logic but the proprietary-science of vested interests, especially Big Pharma.

Proprietary- science ought to be outlawed! In this writer’s opinion, it’s nothing short of ‘vested interest piracy’. However, all the chemical and pharmaceutical companies get away with it hook, line, and sinker! Their ‘science’ is what federal and state agencies accept as valid when, in reality, most of it is ‘fudged’ as safe in order to sell products. Here’s a perfect example:

Furthermore, why is it required protocol to propagate the obviously apparent vested-interest-controlled pseudoscience ‘vaccine dogmas’ as if they are ‘articles of faith’—and especially under penalty of law—or suffer professional excommunication from the ‘church of medical peer status’?

“More specifically, Socrates’ accusers cited two “impious” acts: “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges” and “introducing new deities”.” [14]

For those not familiar with Socrates’ fate, he was required by the law at that time to drink the poisonous hemlock, which killed him.

Haven’t medicine and science learned anything from Copernicus [11], Galileo [12], and Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis [13]? Or, are they afraid that exposed and documented science will destroy their apparently greedy fiefdoms, pharmaceutical empires, and ‘house of cards’? In the meantime, globally, girls—the future mothers of tomorrow—are being sidelined from life and living by the horrendous vaccine damage caused by HPV vaccines. That has to stop. Go, Colombia, get justice!

Post Script:

After submitting this article, I received the following devastating information from Child Health Safety regarding vaccines causing sudden infant deaths. Since CHS in the UK is breaking this story, I’d like for readers to read it on their website HERE.

This information was required to be published by a Court Order in Italy.

“The GlaxoSmithKline Biological Clinical Safety and Pharmacovigilance’s confidential report to the Regulatory Authority on Infanrix hexa (combined Diptheria Tetanus and Acelluar Pertusis, Hepatitis B, inactivated Poliomyelitis and Haemophilus influenza type B vaccine for the period 23 October 2009 to 22 October 2011 (the 15th and 16th Periodic Safety Update Report (PSUR)) has been made available to the public by the Italian Court of Justice Nicola Di Leo and is now available on the internet (http://autismoevaccini.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/vaccin-dc3a9cc3a8s.pdf)”.

Catherine retired from researching and writing, but felt compelled to write this article.

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.